JUDGMENT ( 1. ) AT the outset, Mr. Amar Bhatt, learned advocate for the revisionists seeks permission to delete respondent No.2 in Civil Revision Applications No.18/2012, 22/2012, 23/2012, 26/2012, 31/2012, 32/2012, 33/2012, 34/2012, 37/2012 and 42/2012. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Respondent No.2 shall stand deleted from the array of respondents in each of the above referred revision applications. ( 2. ) EACH of these revisions challenge identically worded orders dated 20th October, 2011 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Court Fees Reference No.82/2010 in Civil Suit-CCC/949/2008 and other cognate matters. ( 3. ) SINCE all the matters involve identical issues, the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 4. ) RULE. Mr. Mihir Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 in each of the revisions. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in respect of Court Fees Reference No.82/2010. ( 5. ) THE revisionists ? plaintiffs instituted various suits in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seeking a declaration that the defendants therein are in possession of the suit land as trespassers and that their possession is illegal and seeking a direction against the defendants to remove the construction thereon at their own cost and hand over the possession to the plaintiffs; and in case the defendants do not remove the construction, the same should be got removed by appointing a Court Commissioner; or in the alternative, the possession of the suit land be handed over to the plaintiffs alongwith the construction thereon. Initially, the plaintiffs had prayed for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month per square metre from the defendant for illegal use of the suit land. However, subsequently, the said prayer came to be deleted. ( 6. ) IN the said suit, the Inspecting Officer (Court Fee) drew the attention of the court to the averments made in the plaint to contend that the plaintiff had not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fee stamp and had paid insufficient court fee in each of the suits. According to the Inspecting Officer, the plaintiff had not valued the property at market value and that the plaintiff was required to pay a higher court fee stamp whereas the plaintiff had paid a very nominal amount. According to the Inspecting Officer, the plaintiff had not valued the property at market value and that the plaintiff was required to pay a higher court fee stamp whereas the plaintiff had paid a very nominal amount. Thus, there was a deficit of court fee. It appears that before the civil court, the plaintiff had contended that as per the provisions of section 6(4) of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the property in question would attract one-fourth of the ad valorem court fee thus, the plaintiff would be required to pay court fee of Rs.5,150/- whereas the plaintiff had paid court fee of Rs.6,750/- which is more than that required under the Act and had urged that the reference be rejected. ( 7. ) THE trial court on the basis of the dispute raised by the Inspecting Officer observed that it was called upon to decide as to whether the plaintiff is required to pay full ad valorem court fee or one-fourth of ad valorem court fee as provided under section 6(4) of the Act The court observed that the plaintiff has not specifically averred as to which specific provision would govern the suit as far as payment of court fee stamp is concerned hence, the court is required to look into the substantive relief claimed in the plaint. The court was of the view that the suit would be governed by the provisions of section 6(4) of the Act and, therefore, the plaintiff is required to pay full ad valorem court fee as provided under section 6(4) of the Act as relief for possession of property is claimed. The court observed that the jantri value of the suit land was Rs.10,500/- per square metre in the year 2010 which was not challenged by the Inspecting Officer and as such, the market value as per jantri would come to Rs.7,35,000/- (70 x 10,500). It was, accordingly, held that the plaintiff is required to pay full ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit property as the plaintiff has prayed for release of the suit property from the possession of the defendant and not one-fourth ad valorem fee and directed accordingly. ( 8. ) BEING aggrieved, the revisionists - plaintiffs are before this court challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judge in each of the matters. ( 9. ( 8. ) BEING aggrieved, the revisionists - plaintiffs are before this court challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judge in each of the matters. ( 9. ) THUS, the short question that arises for determination is as to how the suit properties are required to be valued for the purpose of court fee under the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004. ( 10. ) AT the outset, it may be germane to refer to the report of the Inspecting Officer before the Civil Court. Before the Civil Court, it was the case of the Inspecting Officer that for the purpose of payment of court fee, the suits would fall under section 6(13) of the Act as the plaintiff wants to get possession of the suit lands by filing the present suits. It was further stated that without prejudice to the above contention, the suits for the purposes of payment of court fee should fall under section 6(4) of the Act. ( 11. ) THUS, according to the Court Fee Inspector, the suits would fall under section 6(13) of the Act or, in the alternative, under section 6(4) of the said Act. ( 12. ) MR. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate with Mr. Amar Bhatt, learned advocate for the revisionists in each of the matters submitted that the trial court had failed to appreciate that section 6(4) of the Court Fees Act would apply to suits for declaration in respect of ownership or nature of tenancy, title, tenure, right, lease, etc., and that the suit of the revisionists is not a suit for declaration covered by section 6(4) of the Court Fees Act. The learned counsel further invited the attention of the court to the relief claimed in the plaint to submit that in effect and substance, the suit was a suit for possession. Reference was made to the provisions of section 6 of the Court Fees Act and more particularly to clause (4) and clause (13) thereof. The learned counsel further invited the attention of the court to the relief claimed in the plaint to submit that in effect and substance, the suit was a suit for possession. Reference was made to the provisions of section 6 of the Court Fees Act and more particularly to clause (4) and clause (13) thereof. Drawing the attention of the court to clause (13) of section 6 of the Act, it was pointed out that in case of a suit for the possession of land, houses and gardens, the court fee is required to be determined according to the value of the subject matter and that the value is deemed, in case where the subject matter is a house or garden, according to the market value of the house or garden, and in case where the subject matter is land, in terms of sub-clause (a), (b) or (c) thereof. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the suit land would fall under category (b) and, therefore, the value of the suit land is required to be determined in terms of sub-clause (b) of clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. It was submitted that assuming that the suit property is required to be valued under clause (4) of section 6, even then clause (4) provides for payment of one-fourth to one-half of ad valorem fee as the case may be, leviable for a suit for possession on the basis of title of the subject matter, subject to a minimum fee of forty rupees. It was submitted that even under clause (4) of section 6 of the Act, the ad valorem fee leviable is required to be valued on the basis of the valuation of a suit for possession. Accordingly, even for valuing a property under clause (4), one has to go to clause (13) of section 6 of the Act for the purpose of valuation of the property for a suit for possession and thereafter determine the ad valorem fee payable under clause (4) of section 6. Referring to sub-clause (b) of clause 13 of section 6, it was pointed out that the value of the suit property would be equal to a sum of forty times the survey assessment, and not the market value as computed by the Court Commissioner and as held by the civil court. Referring to sub-clause (b) of clause 13 of section 6, it was pointed out that the value of the suit property would be equal to a sum of forty times the survey assessment, and not the market value as computed by the Court Commissioner and as held by the civil court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhaorao vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 1 SCC 542 , and more particularly to paragraph 4 thereof. It was submitted that the said decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, the revisions deserve to be allowed. ( 13. ) OPPOSING the revision applications, Mr. Mihir Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the judgment passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and does not warrant interference by this court. It was submitted that the Gujarat Court Fees Act does not make any provision for computation of value of land other than agricultural land and that the suit lands not being agricultural lands, the trial court has rightly valued the same at market value on the basis of the prevalent jantri rate and as such, this court may not exercise powers under section 115 of the Code. ( 14. ) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and contentions, reference may be made to section 6 of the Court Fees Act which makes provision for computation of fees payable in certain suits and lays down that the amount of fees payable under the Act in the suits mentioned thereunder (16 categories in all) shall be computed as laid down thereunder. As noticed earlier, the relief claimed in the present suit is to declare that the defendant is in possession of the suit land as a trespasser and to get the construction thereon removed at the cost of the defendant thereafter to hand over the possession of the suit property, and in case the defendant does not remove the construction, to appoint a Court Commissioner for removing the construction at the cost of the defendant or to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs alongwith the construction. The second relief seeking compensatory damages of Rs.2000/- per month towards illegal occupation and use of the land has been deleted. Thus, essentially, the suit is a suit for possession. ( 15. The second relief seeking compensatory damages of Rs.2000/- per month towards illegal occupation and use of the land has been deleted. Thus, essentially, the suit is a suit for possession. ( 15. ) THE trial court has held that the court fee is required to be determined on the basis that the case falls under the 3 rd proviso to section 6(4) of the Act. Under the circumstances, it would be relevant to refer to clause (4) of section 6 of the Act. Clause (4) of section 6 provides for computation of court fee in respect of suits for declaration in respect of ownership or nature of tenancy, title, tenure, right, lease, freedom, or exemption from, or non- liability to, attachment with or without sale or other attributes, of immovable property, such as a declaration that certain land is personal property of the Ruler of any former Indian State or public trust property or property of any class or community and provides for payment of one-fourth of the ad valorem fee leviable for a suit for possession on the basis of title of the subject matter, subject to a minimum fee of forty rupees. The first proviso to clause (4) lays down that if the question is of attachment with or without sale, the amount of fee shall be the ad valorem fee according to the value of the property sought to be protected from attachment with or without sale or the fee of thirty rupees, whichever is less. The second proviso provides that where the defendant is or claims through a limited owner, the amount of fee shall be one-sixth of such ad valorem fee, subject to the minimum fee specified above. The third proviso which is relevant for the present purpose provides that in any of the cases falling under the said clause, except its first proviso, when in addition to any consequential relief other than possession is sought, the amount of fee shall be one-half of the ad valorem fee and when the consequential relief sought also includes a relief for possession, the amount of fee shall be the full ad valorem fee. ( 16. ) BEFORE the trial court, it was the case of the Inspecting Officer that the suit falls under clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. ( 16. ) BEFORE the trial court, it was the case of the Inspecting Officer that the suit falls under clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. It would, therefore, be necessary to refer to clause (13) of section 6 which provides for computation of court fees in suits for possession of land, houses and gardens, and postulates that the amount of court fee payable in suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens shall be according to the value of the subject matter. The said clause further provides for a deeming fiction whereby the value of the subject matter where it is a house or garden shall be according to the market value of the house or garden and where the subject is land, then the value of the land shall depend on the category in which the land falls namely, whether the same falls under sub- clause (a), (b) or (c) of clause (13). ( 17. ) SUB-clause (a) of clause (13) provides that where land is held on settlement for a period not exceeding thirty years and full assessment is paid to Government the value of the land shall be a sum equal to twenty times the survey assessment. Sub-clause (b) which would be applicable in the present case provides that where the land is held on a permanent settlement, or on a settlement for any period exceeding thirty years, and full assessment is paid to Government the value of the land shall be a sum equal to forty times the survey assessment; and sub-clause (c) provides that where the whole or any part of the annual survey assessment is remitted the value of the land shall be a sum computed under sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b), as the case may be, in addition to forty times the assessment, or the portion of assessment, so remitted. ( 18. ) THUS, in case of a suit for possession of land, the court fee shall be the value of land computed in terms of sub- clause (a), (b) or (c) of clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. As noticed earlier, the present suits are essentially suits for possession of land and would, therefore, fall under clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. As noticed earlier, the present suits are essentially suits for possession of land and would, therefore, fall under clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. Insofar as the category under which the disputed lands would fall, the learned advocate for the revisionists has fairly stated that the present cases would fall under sub-clause (b) of section 6(13) of the Act, viz., where the land is held on a permanent settlement and full assessment is paid to the Government. ( 19. ) UNDER the circumstances, the court fees would be required to be computed on the value of the land wherein the value of the land shall be deemed to be a sum equal to forty times the survey assessment. ( 20. ) IT may be noted that the trial court has held that the present case falls under clause (4) of section 6 and has computed the court fee on the basis of the market value of the suit land. As noticed earlier, even if the case is one falling under clause (4) of section 6, even then the court fee payable would be either one-fourth or one-half or the full amount of ad valorem fee leviable for a suit for possession. Here again, the ad valorem fee would be required to be computed on the basis of fee leviable for a suit for possession as laid down under clause (13) of section 6 of the Act. The provision does not envisage levy of court fees on the basis of actual market value of the land as contended by the Inspecting Officer (Court Fee). ( 21. ) THE present case, therefore, is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhaorao v. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein the court in the context of section 6(i)(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which is in pari materia to clause (13) of section 6 of the Act, held thus:- "3. The appellants approached the High Court on the revisional side and challenged the decision of the trial court on the question of court fee. The High Court referred to Section 6(i)(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which was in force at the material time. This provision may be reproduced: "In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens ? The High Court referred to Section 6(i)(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which was in force at the material time. This provision may be reproduced: "In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens ? according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be, where the subject-matter is a house or garden ? according to the market-value of the house or garden and where the subject-matter is land". (a)-(c) * * * According to the High Court the court fee was payable according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit. So far as the houses and gardens were concerned it was the market value on which the court fee had to be paid. As regards the lands sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c ) contained a qualification with regard to those lands which were liable to pay land revenue to the State. Since tank was land covered under water it had to be valued as on the date of the suit without taking into consideration the improvements which might have been made. The value was of the subject-matter and it would be that value which would be relevant for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further enquiry in the matter. 4. It appears that according to the view of the High court the court fee is payable under Section 6(1)(v) even with regard to land on its value which, according to the counsel for the State, would be the market-value. In our judgment Section 6(i)(v) does not admit of any such method of calculating the court fee where the subject- matter is land. There is no doubt that where the subject- matter is a house or a garden in a suit for possession, the court fee has to be paid according to the market-value of the house or garden but where the subject-matter is land the court fee has to be calculated according to what has been provided in the sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) with regard to different categories of land. It may be that in clause (v) the land which has not been assessed to land revenue is not covered by sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) but then the court fee will have to be calculated under some other provision of the Act but not on the basis of the value of the land." ( 22. ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the present cases would fall under sub-clause (b) of clause (13) of section 6 of the Act and as such, the value of the suit properties would be required to be computed as discussed hereinabove on the basis of the assessment paid to the Government in respect of the suit lands as provided under the said provision. ( 23. ) THE trial court was, therefore, not justified in directing that the court fee be computed on the basis of the market value of the suit land. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad cannot be sustained. ( 24. ) THE revisions, therefore, succeed and are accordingly allowed. The revisionists shall be required to pay court fee in respect of the suits instituted by it under section 6(13)(b) of the Act in the manner indicated hereinabove. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.